About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
, the first appearance was with judge marianne boulder and she was there to review his miranda rights with him, among other things. you've been hearing a lot about miranda rights. there's issue at play here that need to be clarified. we're going to read a couple of the things said from the hearing. we have the transcript. the judge said, quoting here, you have been charged with one use of a weapon often mass destruction and malicious destruction of property resulting in death. the case is being prosecuted in part by william weinreb. the maximum penalty on each count is death or imprisonment for any terms of years, or life. and there was this finding from the judge, and this one is important. quote, i find that the defendant is alert, mentally competent, and lucid. he is aware of the nature of the proceedings. okay? so that is the basis for the discussion. joined by retired superior court judge isaac borenstein in boston. he's done hospital visits over his 22 years as a judge. let us begin with the idea, confusion and frustration about miranda rights. give them right away, if you don't give the
reading him miranda rights. what does that mean for any information they might be getting? >> well, it's very important to the people -- we've been talking a lot about miranda and i think it's important for people to understand what it does and doesn't mean. if you are questioned without your miranda rights, all that means is that the statements you make cannot be used against you in a criminal court. they can be used against other people. they can be used as leads to other inquiries. and you can still be prosecuted with lots of other evidence. all it means is that those statements cannot be used against you. from what it certainly appears there is lots of other evidence against this fellow. so the fact that the government might be giving up the chance to use some of it is not much of a sacrifice on the part of the government. >> he also at this point could indicate he wants an attorney and doesn't want to answer any questions, correct? >> absolutely. even when someone doesn't get miranda rights, the statements still have to be voluntary. he can't be tortured. he can't be waterboarded.
be charged as early as today. investigators have not read him his miranda rights unwhat they call the public safety exception clause. so they may use any information he reveals as evidence in court. let's bring in christopher tritico, he defended the oklahoma city bomber, timothy mcveigh. christopher, thanks very much for coming in. he is a u.s. citizen. he was -- he received his naturalized citizenship last september 11th, of all dates. he's obviously in a hospital. crime was committed in the united states. if they don't read him his miranda rights right away, you okay with that? >> well, look. i think the public safety exception is being greatly and overly expanded in this instance. the public safety exception as the supreme court laid out is for an instance when an officer walks up on a situation and sees an empty holster and says where's your gun. that's to prevent an imminent threat from happening right then. what they are doing now is really expanding that public safety exception to say really the fifth amendment applies when they say it does and i don't think the supreme court is goin
this suspect, they'll read the miranda rights and all of that. they're going to try to find out if this individual who has now been arrested acted alone as a so-called lone wolf or was part of some broader conspiracy, walk us through what the fbi is about to do. >> sure. well, wolf, they will -- they will take him into custody, they will give him his miranda rights because they want to be sure any statement the individual may make is admissible in court during the prosecution. if the individual agrees to talk, there will be -- they will take a statement and they will also likely confront him with forensic evidence and things that they have learned, photographs, they will ask him to identify how he constructed the bomb, how he knew to construct the bomb, who, if anyone, he worked with, who he communicated with, they'll want to -- they will want to make sure to take when he's arrested any cell phones, blackberries, pocket litter, pieces of paper, notebooks he may have on him and they'll want to have him retrace for them his steps. they will then send other investigators out to try
but the fbi are saying there are enough further threats to justify an exception to miranda. there are a lot of interesting issues. his youth, the fact that he seems to be very much influenced by his brother. he could probably hold out and get a deal if he's prepared to say whether his brother got training in chechnya. >> since mccain and graham said they want the enemy combatant for these kind of suspects. >> impossible. there's no way an american city committing a dough mystic crime. it couldn't happen. it shows absolute ignorance of the law. >> in terms of this revolution, you have two brothers who has committed this appalling act. the younger one in particular, seems to be leading a very important life. does that concern you? that there could be many more out there? >> you know what else concerns me, you don't want to be critical of what l.a. did. the fact that one hmong man could close down an anner city, get baseball kids postponed, you can imagine another kid saying i want that as well. people are easily influenced by previous spurns, older brothers and authority figures. >> how do yo
, let me come over to you, a lot of talk about miranda. but give me a sense of what the leeway is especially in situations like this, after acts like what happened here at the marathon. >> well, it is yesterday's news. he's been given his miranda warnings and probably anything he said without his miranda warnings is not going to be needed by the government or the prosecution. remember, they did not indict him as a terrorist, that's very important. they indicted him as an ordinary murderer, anybody who wants to kill their mother-in-law, business partner and makes an improvised explosive device and kills them is just as guilty under the statute indicted as osama bin laden might be. this is not a terrorist prosecution. they don't have to prove intent to terrorize, intent to intimidate. they can prove their case just through the videotapes. now, i predict there are going to be two types of possible defenses in this case. number one, the jihad defense. i did it, i'm proud, i'm happy, please kill me, i want to join my brother in paradise. i'm a martyr. the other, my brother made me d
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6